Pelosi's Gavel Proves to Wield Little Power to End Conflict in Iraq

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9885

Pelosi's Gavel Proves to Wield Little Power to End Conflict in Iraq
by Frank J Ranelli | Sep 12 2007

Amid disingenuous half-truths, an obvious penchant to submit to Bush’s resolve to indefinitely stay in Iraq, and now cobbled together excuses instead of results, Nancy Pelosi has shown little true grit to exercise Congress’ ability to end the bloodbath in Iraq.

::::

snip//

Equally content to merely watch the sand in Bush’s hourglass run out, Pelosi has turned to a dangerous political game of “blame Bush” and hollow rhetoric. The Speaker’s website, The Gavel, crafts spurious allegations that it is Bush’s veto pen, and a lack of a super-majority in the Senate, that is the reason Congress is unable to fulfill their election promise to America. This is the penultimate, intolerable excuse for being unable to deliver a mandate to President Bush to cease hostilities in Iraq.

However, the definitive, insufferable failure on Speaker Pelosi’s part is her statement that the Bush-Petraeus plan is “an insult to the intelligence of the American people.” To the contrary, Bush has bullied, lied, and been outright indifferent to the demands of the American people. It is Pelosi’s dissembling, amid a tempest of empty vitriol indicting Bush for Congress’ failures, which is the damning insult to our intelligence.

Nancy Pelosi’s invective to America’s wisdom began when she took impeachment “off the table” and ended when she commenced funding Bush’s illegitimate war. America is no longer only insulted by Pelosi’s inactions, but increasingly angry and restive.

In truth, it is not Bush’s veto pen or the lack of votes in Congress causing a deadly, failed foreign policy to drag on into its fifth year. It is Speaker Pelosi’s acquiescence and incompetence that is the centerpiece of culpability and the reason why we are still expending blood and dollars in Iraq.

As Speaker of the House, Pelosi ultimately determines what legislation is, or is not, brought to the floor in the House. As such, she has no constitutional directive that demands she allocate any further funding for Iraq. No legislation is requisite. No vote is necessary. All that is bluntly needed is for Pelosi to say “no” to Bush, and “You have the money to bring the troops home.”

Sadly, Nancy Pelosi, America’s first female Speaker of the House, has chosen the path of least resistance. She has failed to heed the clarion call of America to put a stop to virtually five years of circular madness. In the end, it is Pelosi’s continual capitulation to political pressure and propaganda from a deeply unpopular President, which will render the gravest consequences of all to America for years to come.

[leftchick]

1. I just read this at Op-Ednews

it makes very clear why pelosi has been a tragic disappointment to me and others.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Another ignorant piece of trash...

written by yet another keyboard warrior who has absolutely no idea just what Speakers actually do for a living.

This kind of bullshit hit piece is made obvious from the lack of any reference to any other Speaker and his relationship with a sitting President. I doubt the writer could barely name another Speaker, much less write authoritively about any of them, including this one.

So, just how has any speaker in the past dealt with a similar situation? What is the practical, not technical, boundary in the separation of powers between between the House and the President? What deference does the House have to pay to the Senate when making demands on the White House?

Don't know, do ya?

Then stop yapping until you do.